Greta van Susteren interviews thrice-married adulterer Newt Gingrich in Iowa, and asks him about his relationship with evangelicals and his role in ousting three justices from the Supreme Court over their vote for same-sex marriage and equal rights for all citizens.

Newt lies and says it was about "rewriting the constitution based on their whim."

Watch (starts around 3:50), AFTER THE JUMP…

It was recently revealed that Gingrich provided $200,000 in seed money to the campaign to remove the pro-equality judges.

Transcript:

GINGRICH: Well, I mean, they're very significant, and I think they played a significant role, frankly, in defeating the three Iowa Supreme Court judges who were the first judges ever defeated in Iowa in the history of that process. They have a process here where you get to vote yes or no on whether or not to retain them. And historically, judges only got about a 40 percent no. This time, a majority voted no. And it looks very possible that at least three more of the Supreme Court justices will leave. And I think, in that sense, they probably played a significant role beyond the regular election process.

VAN SUSTEREN: You mentioned that LA Times reports that you or your organization contributed $200,000 to that effort on those three that were tossed out of the Iowa supreme court, is that right?

GINGRICH: No, we helped find the money. It didn't come from our organization. But I've long taken a very strong position that judges have to operate within the framework of the Constitution. Judges can't rewrite the Constitution at will, based on the current fad or the current opinion or the choice of the day. And I did agree with those Iowans who felt that this court had clearly fundamentally changed the Iowa constitution in a way that the voters of Iowa would not have supported.

VAN SUSTEREN: So cutting to the chase, you're opposed to gay marriage, because that's essentially what this issue was about.

GINGRICH: Well, I'm very strongly in support of marriage being between a man and woman, which is what it has historically always been. And I — but beyond that, I'm very strongly opposed to courts on many topics, not just on issues of marriage, but on many topics, we've been in a cycle where judges decide they will rewrite the constitution based on their whim. I think that's wrong. I think it's constitutionally wrong.

And I think that it represents an abuse of power by judges. And Iowa was an opportunity to start sending a signal that we need a national debate. I mean, the 9th circuit court is consistently wrong. It's overturned more than all the other courts. And I think we ought to recognize that when you have judges who are consistently wrong, they shouldn't be there.

Watch (starts around 3:50), AFTER THE JUMP…